1799-] 
rious oppofition to the laws had for fome 
time manijefted itfelf in the rebellious 
county of Northampton,, and it became 
neceflary for the marthal to alfert the au- 
thority of government. He accordingly 
proceeded to che (cene of inturrection, and 
arrefted twenty-three perfons for tundry 
atts of refitance to the operation. of the 
law, impofing a tax upon houfes. In 
the houte of reprelentatives, on the 2d of 
March, a warm ditcuflion took place on 
the bill for vefting the power of retalia- 
tion, in certain cates, in the Prefident of 
the United States; and the quettion for 
poltponing the confideration of it until 
the next {eifion was negatived by 35 to 
32 votes. After fome amendment, the 
bill was paffed by 56 to 34. On the Sun- 
day following, the houfe anet, whien the 
pretident informed them and the fenate, 
that he had approved and figned the dif- 
ferent acts which had paffed both houfes. 
A yote of thanks to the.fpeaker having 
pafled, he adjourned the houfe 4ne die. 
IRELAND. 
The principal fubjects which have 
Jately engaged the attention of the Irith 
legiflature, have been the regency and the 
indemnity bills. The commons having 
formed themfelves into a committee, on 
the former of thefe bills, on the 12th of 
April, the fpeaker commenced a {peech of 
great length and animation, complaining 
of the manner in which his political con- 
duét, refpecting the adjuftment of 1782, 
had been reprefented by the Britifh mi 
nifter, He ftated, that when he had de- 
clared in 1785, that “* things could not 
remain as they were,’ he was fpeaking 
merely of commerce, and it was certainly 
a great want of candour to reprefent him 
as talking of the conftitution. Near the 
end of his {peech he made an impreilive 
apoftrophe to the [rifh nation, calling upon 
them, without any regard to their diffe- 
rence of their religious opinions, to unite 
in preferving the liberties of their country, 
and not to make a cor.cefflion of their con- 
ftitution, which could never be retracted 
but by an appeal to arms, LordCaftlereagh 
fpoke very ably in reply. Sir B. Roche, 
Sir J. Blaquiera, Mr. Coote, Mr. Monck 
Maton, Mr. Alexander, and Col. M’Do- 
nald followed on the fame fide again the 
bill. It was fupported by Mr. Ponfonby, 
Sir J. Parnell, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. 
Arthur Moore. The bill pafled the com- 
mittee,and the report was ordered to be 
weceived on the 13th. 
The commons went into a committee 
en the indemnity bill, on the 22d of 
MontTHLY MAc. No, XLv. 
State of Public Affairs. 
4.09 
April, when counfel were heard at the 
bar in behali of Matthew Scott df Carrick- 
on Suir, Elg. againft it, as tending to 
nullify his action tor tale imprifonment, 
againit T. Judkin Fitzgerald, Efq. late 
High Sheriff of the county of Tipperary. 
Lhe prime ferjeant {poke in reply to the 
arguments of the countel: he faid it was 
argued asif this bill infringed the law as it 
formerly ftood, and repeated the tormer 
act of indemnity. He contended that the 
prefent bill did neither. “It only carried 
into execution with more effect the provi- 
fions of the indemnity aét; namely, that 
When nvmbers were engaged in putting 
down a dangerous rebellion, and were 
obliged, in many inftances, to aét in op- 
pofition to eftablithed law, thole perfons 
having aéted trom a laudable and uieful 
motive, fhould be wrotected from the pe- 
nalties of the law. But, if any man were 
to act under fucha pretext, in away in 
which no reafonable man could be inp- 
pofed to ast for the public fatety, then he 
{aw no reafon why the party fhould not 
meet with due punifhment; the com- 
miffion of the injury would make a prima 
Jacie cate for the plaintiff; or ‘could 
there be any good reafon why the deten- 
dant fhould not be cait if he could not 
fhew probable caufe, nor why the jury 
fhould not find true ground upon which 
they could find a verdiéi for the plaintiff, 
The danger of juries finding popular ver- 
2 
a 
‘ dicts againtt parties charged with offence, 
which they had been ied into from a re- 
gard they had to preiérve the public tran- 
quility, afforded alio a good argument 
why the jndges fhould be invetted with that 
controuling power over the verdict which 
this bill gave them. Indeed they already 
poffefied this power to a certain degree; 
for it was the common practice otf the 
courts to fet afide verdicts which were 
had againft the direction of the judges, 
With refpeét to the argument, that mak- 
ing the jury find exprefs malice wherever 
they found for the plaintiff, would, in a 
great meafure, fruftrate the plaintiff’s 
action ;—that was the very object of the 
bill. It went to proteét the loyalift 
againft the paying damages, in cafes 
where he had acted trom a good motive. 
It was alfo an object of the bill to leave 
nothing in ob{curity;: but to make the 
jury ftate, in their verdi@t, the grounds on 
which it was found. The Hon. Mr. 
Yelverton replied to the prime ferjeant.. 
He contended, that under this bill, a 
montter, who had committed enormcus 
cruelties, under the pretence of keeping 
the public peace, would often efcape with 
3G impunity, 

